One of our SKEPTIC MAG INTERNET HOTLINE readers, a sociologist who has
studied psychics for decades, wondered whether it might be possible that
Van Praagh is self-deceiving instead of, or in addition to deceiving. He
also wondered if I wasn't being too black and white in my assessment of
him as a cheater and liar. In response, I have added the following two
paragraphs that I originally had in the essay, then deleted. And I
rewrote the subsequent section (below) so that it is clear that Van Praagh
accuses himself of cheating, then denies it. It is very interesting to
see how that unfolded.
Michael Shermer

P.S. Oh, on the CBS Unsolved Mysteries piece, a disappointment compared to
20/20, I gave them specific examples of skip-code messages in Moby Dick and
other works, but they chose not to use them, and instead allow Drosnin to
slam me by saying he looked and couldn't find any. I also pointed out that
in this process the vowels are added AFTER the skip search program is run,
where you subjectively look at letter and add vowels where you want to.
They also chose to leave out this bit of damning information.

Deception or Self-Deception?

When I first began following Van Praagh I thought perhaps there was a
certain element of self-deception on his part where, giving him the benefit
of the doubt (he does seem a likable character), he developed his cold- and
warm- reading techniques through a gradual developmental process of subject
feedback and reinforcement, much like the operant conditioning of a rat
through "shaping," where one rewards partial behaviors until the
target goal is reached. And it is true that gurus come to believe in their
own divinity when enough of their followers tell them they are divine. We
skeptics are only too aware of the power of self-deception in areas
involving memory.

Human behavior is enormously complex, so I suppose it is possible that Van
Praagh is _both_ deceiving and self-deceiving, but over the years I have
observed much more of the former than the latter. During the Unsolved
Mysteries shoot, which lasted 10 hours and was filled with numerous breaks,
Van Praagh would routinely make small talk with us, asking lots of questions
and obtaining information, which he then used to his advantage when the
cameras were rolling.

Is it possible he does not consciously realize that he is doing this? I
contacted numerous mentalists about Van Praagh and they all assure me,
without reservation, that it would be impossible for him to be self-deceiving
because these are techniques that they all use and do so consciously and
purposefully. I was told that I was being naive in trying to give Van
Praagh the benefit of the doubt. I even talked to someone I know who works
a 900-psychic hotline, who is a skeptic but believes there might be something
to "some" psychic abilities. It turns out he knows James Van
Praagh, and many of the people who work with him in that industry
(unfortunately he will not speak out for the record), and he assures me
that Van Praagh is not self-deceived. The psychic industry consensus,
this source tells me, is that James Van Praagh knows exactly what he is
doing.

Caught Cheating

Even for seasoned observers it is remarkable how Van Praagh appears to get
hits, even though a closer look reveals that he does not. When we were
filming the 20/20 piece, I was told that though overall he had not done
well the night before, he did get a couple of startling hits including the
name of a woman's family dog. But when we reviewed the videotape, here is
what actually happened.

Van Praagh was bombing in his reading of a gentleman named Peter, who was
poker-faced and obviously skeptical (without feedback Van Praagh's hit rate
drops by half). After dozens of misses, Van Praagh queried, "Who is
Charlie?" Peter sat there dumbfounded, unable to recall if he knew
anyone of significance named Charlie, when suddenly the woman sitting in
back of him a complete stranger blurted out "Charlie was our family
dog." Van Praagh seized the moment and proclaimed that he could see
Charlie and Dad taking walks in heaven together.

The highlight of the 20/20 piece, however, was a case of hot reading that
Van Praagh denied having done. On a break, with the video camera rolling,
while relaxing and sipping a glass of water, he suddenly called out to a
young woman named Mary Jo: "Did your mother pass on?" Mary Jo
nodded negatively, but volunteered "Grandmother." A full 54
minutes later Van Praagh turned to her and said: "I want to tell you,
there is a lady sitting behind you. She feels like a grandmother to me."

Van Praagh suspects he might have been set up by 20/20. I can assure you he
was not. In this particular incident, for example, neither he nor the
producers were aware that the camera was on during the break. When I was
there they asked me about the grandmother hit, and I explained that I would
have guessed that myself because of the woman's age it would more likely be
a grandparent than a parent, and from there you have a 50/50 shot. Just then
one of the line producers said, "you know, I think he got that on the
break.

Too bad we don't have it on film. After checking they discovered they did,
so Van Praagh was caught red-handed. But when confronted by 20/20
correspondent Bill Ritter with the video clip, he proclaimed: "I
don'2t cheat. I don't have to prove.... I don't cheat. I don't cheat. I
mean, come on." Interesting. No one said anything about cheating.
Van Praagh is denying his self-imposed charge.

---
If this message was forwarded from a friend and you'd like to join
the distribution list (it's FREE), e-mail join-skeptics@lyris.net

The views and opinions stated within this web page are those of the
author or authors which wrote them and may not reflect the views and
opinions of the ISP or account user which hosts the web page.